Yeah, we brought the Libyans freedom! Also totally wrecked their irrigation system with bombs—and the factory that made its pipes. Freedom is messy. 
Yep, with Democrats talking like Don Rumsfeld, it’s already over. A mystery potato chip found in a jacket pocket has more credibility at forming a government.
That is not as easy as you make it sound. Consider: What could Obama offer McConnell & Grassley to get them to say yes?
So you want net upside for us, and net downside for the other guy? It doesn’t generally work that way, nor should it.
So you admit that Kerry’s approach (to the degree that they differ) is more realistic.
“First woman President! First woman President! First woman President!” :rolleyes:
No, they have been all right. More Q&A than debate, I think.
Next time, perhaps you should watch the debate with the sound on.
That was a quote from an early debate. I admit I’ve not watched them all.
That’s easy: Priscilla Owen or any other arch conservative judge. Janice Rogers Brown also comes to mind.
That’s probably wishing for too much of course, but when you bargain from a position of strength rather than weakness you can get more. Obama promised that Iran would not get nukes, and since he thought Iran was close, that meant war. He did not want war. Iran knew he didn’t want war more than they didn’t want war. So they were able to take a hardline position and get pretty much all the concessions. Negotiations with the Soviets went the same way. Whoever wanted a deal more made more concessions. The best arms deals for us were under Reagan and Bush. The worst was under Carter(Salt II).
It’s more realistic in terms of being better for our short and medium term interests, yes. I still believe though that the “Freedom agenda” is the best in the long term. But I’m not sure Kerry’s philosophy matters when he’s not willing to get tough with anyone. Everyone in the world knows that Clinton is Maggie Thatcher when it comes to foreign affairs. Kerry makes Jimmy Carter look tough.
I’m not seeing it. You don’t need to know somebody’s personal ideology to form a reasonably accurate picture of what they’re prepared to try to get away with, and what they’re not.
[QUOTE=Peremensoe]
All the rest is about specific things that are now more or less knowable; what about when something unanticipated arises?
[/QUOTE]
I don’t think politicians’ “beliefs” have much to do with how they respond to the unanticipated, if by “unanticipated” you mean “unanticipated and seriously bad”.
Depressing, too. I would prefer Republican candidates who were actually sensible, realistic, not in thrall to anti-science ideologies, pragmatic, capable of negotiation and compromise, and effective. I still would be unlikely to prefer them over similarly qualified Democratic candidates, but at least if one of them got elected I could feel fairly confident that some of the things they tried to do would be worthwhile.
The current crowd of magical-thinking demagogues, on the other hand, seem to have pretty much zero principles of governing other than their loudly-expressed hatred of government. Why Republican voters are so eager to pay the salaries of people who explicitly declare their contempt for the jobs they’re applying for, and their fixed intention of relentlessly obstructing any colleagues actually attempting to do the job they’re being paid for, is something I do not understand.
Not bad as snark goes. But yes, experience isn’t everything (of course). It is however an advantage. Furthermore, it gives the employer the ability to evaluate the candidate. In Buchanan’s case, President James K. Polk said: “Mr. Buchanan is an able man, but is in small matter without judgment and sometimes acts like an old maid.” Admittedly that was taken from Polk’s diary.
One of the challenges faced by the next President will be managing the anti-science, anti-professional and petulant tendencies of Republican members of Congress. Clinton has been on the receiving end of it for decades and observed their quieter moments when she was in the Senate. She’s not a bad match for the challenges of this era.
However, she’s an awful match for what the public is looking for right now, which is honesty and authenticity. I get the feeling that no matter how successful she is, a majority of voters will still not like her for that reason. Even getting good stuff done using the old political means and ends is not going to go over well and only make the public more fed up come the next election. And there are worse people than Trump out there who can take advantage of it.
Then why are they supporting Trump? You can’t seriously believe he is going to build a 1,700 mile wall, or deport 12 million illegal aliens? Do you?
Republicans always vote for the biggest liar, that’s why they are so angry now. The establishment played them for fools, so now they have found a professional liar to screw them over yet again.
Trump is a liar, but there’s no question in anyone’s mind that we’re seeing the real Donald Trump. But I’ve said in other threads that when Trump inevitably disappoints, there’ll be hell to pay.
There is a middle ground though. A good, competent leader can reduce some of the anger out there.
Maybe not. But inexperience almost always translates to presidential failure. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Donald Trump!
So the voters are yearning for honesty and authenticity, but are just too stupid to know they are falling for another liar? If Hillary is so dishonest, what makes you think a majority of those morons won’t be taken in by her charms as well? Or do their powers discern truth from lies only work on liberals, but they are powerless against the blandishments of Republicans?
Trump has authenticity, as in his persona is not a poll tested acting job. He does however, fail the honesty test.
When I’m looking for authenticity, the first place I go to is reality show hosts.
Chrissakes, Trump’s entire public life is an acting job. Or are just lamenting that it hasn’t been poll tested yet? What were his Neilsons, anyway? Was he ahead of or behind Ow, My Balls?
I believe Trump will loudly claim he has built it, and has deported them – and will say “believe me” a lot while doing so – and will angrily interrupt to insult you and threaten to sue you if you start to say anything against him – and if you keep trying to talk, he’ll tell people to rough you up and get you out of here while promising to pay their legal fees. So, basically, what he’s doing now, only he’d be able to pardon folks.
It would be very difficult to be worse. His foreign policy was an embarrassment to his country.
I can live with embarrassment. He avoided the trillion dollar catastrophe of his predecessor that killed 4,425 Americans, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, and spawned the scourge of ISIS. By comparison, Republicans have an execrable foreign policy record. Mere embarrassment means we have improved immensely.
Take away GWB and the GOP foreign policy record is vastly superior to the Democrats. We had one catastrophic President. The Democrats have had two, plus the most recent guy, who did manage to “not do stupid shit” but didn’t actually accomplish anything. As his possible successor has pointed out, foreign policy has to be about more than that.
I’m sure glad you’re here every morning. The laughter, nay, the gut-busting guffaws you inspire get my heart started better than my morning coffee. “Aside from that, how did you like the play, Mrs. Lincoln?”
Until we have a successful Republican Presidency, I have to take that one. However, Ike, Nixon, Reagan and Bush 41 all had foreign policy records to be proud of.